|
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | CS wrote: "The Professors hired by the NFWFHoF recommended the creation of an indepenent panel because they themselves couldn't say one way or the other if Dettloff was right or wrong. If they had agreed he was wrong they would have said so themselves. In no way, shape, or form did they agree with the results obtained by DCM."
What is it CS that you failed to understand from Professor Arnolds comments: "A bunch of people sort of took up the call," Arnold says. "There have been calls and newspaper articles and things like that, but the Hall has basically said, ‘We've done our analysis and we don't foresee looking into it any further.'" According to Arnold, the Hall has actually changed its rules: A $1500 filing fee is now required for any challenges to its records.
"Is mathematics being ignored in a situation where it could provide a valuable service?
"I think it's slightly worse than that," the IMA director says. "I think it's being manipulated . . . that there's an attempt, by giving out limited evidence and going to different people, to come up with a point of view that supports a decision that perhaps they had already come to in any case."
"Arnold cites the Hall's giving different photos to the three mathematicians, instead of providing all three with all available evidence, and asking the mathematicians to accept what he considers dubious assumptions. The mathematicians, moreover, have received no response to their suggestion that an independent commission of experts be formed to examine the matter."
LR: CS I see nothing in Professor Arnolds writing critical of the DCM photo analys, but rather see a very strong condemnation of the Hall by its own experts! The Hall got what they wanted to use from them and then refused to listen to them further to get at the real truth. Shame on the NFWFHF board.
Your statement: "The photos of these two fish (Walden and O'brien...LR) should appear strikingly similar and yet they don't resemble each other at all. O'Brien's obviously is very fat for it's length while Walden's is a supposedly a "snake" with a 31" girth. Photogrammetry is obviously unnecessary in this case."
LR: And just where is it written that two muskellunge with similar measurements should look the same? Do you have access to some science that I do not? Doubt that seriously. Your OPINIONs are getting further and further off base. And again, you are sounding Dettloffean in your ability to analyze a photo without photogrammetery...What were your qualifications again???
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | And CS, just whom did you hear this from?: "The story I've heard is that the lower fins were removed on Johnson's fish during the mounting process and were reattached in the wrong location."
LR: Either Dettloff or one of his henchmen I'll wager. sworrall nailed it in his reply above, and if you would have bothered to look at the Johnson mount closely, you would note that those fins are exactly "in" the skin where they grew. They were NOT cut off, but rather just "drifted" when the taxidermist stretched the skin and then had to add more skin behind them to obtain the "claimed" length of the fish. |
|
| |
|
|
Larry - all argument aside, which fish do you believe were legitimate? OBrien's? What do you see as the top 3 fish you believe in?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Guest, my personal beliefs have nothing to do with this. All "historical" muskie records have not been treated equally nor fairly by the NFWFHF or the IGFA. It is as simple as that and I'm still mad as hell about it. I have made my position clear in my book; Historical records should be left alone and deemed such. And now we need a modern day fish captured that we can all believe in. Those historical fish that weren't recognized as world records when caught may come out a bit on the short end of the stick if they were legit, but we have to start somewhere and recognizing past catches that cannot meet today's criteria isn't the place to do so. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | Not to mention Arnold also said he did not feel that Spray's fish was as big as claimed. Guess thy left that out too. |
|
| |
|
| Larry Ramsell - 2/8/2011 1:12 PM
Guest, my personal beliefs have nothing to do with this. All "historical" muskie records have not been treated equally nor fairly by the NFWFHF or the IGFA. It is as simple as that and I'm still mad as hell about it. I have made my position clear in my book; Historical records should be left alone and deemed such. And now we need a modern day fish captured that we can all believe in. Those historical fish that weren't recognized as world records when caught may come out a bit on the short end of the stick if they were legit, but we have to start somewhere and recognizing past catches that cannot meet today's criteria isn't the place to do so.
Larry -- your personal beliefs do matter in that you've studied this stuff more than anyone else, and you seem to have strong opinions on it. Whether or not the proof is conclusive either way, you must have some opinions. Just based on what you know, and its not excluding others you don't know enough about, which ones do you personally feel pretty confident were as large as stated? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | NOTE: I see that as I wrote this response, CS's last three posts were pulled. Sorry if it adds a bit of confusion, but at least his main quote is responded to:
CS: Your attempts to support your buddy John are growing weary and getting further afield, and your taxidermy comments are just plain, well.... Most of the rest of your latest I won't bother with, but feel I must respond to the following:
CS wrote: "Show me where the Professors said they agreed with DCM's findings? You say that you see nothing in Professor Arnold's writing critical of DCM photo analysis but I see nothing in Professor Arnold's writing saying anything positive about the DCM photo analysis either. What I do know is that the Professors didn't feel there was sufficient information in the Spray photos to obtain a definitive answer."
LR: This just shows how little you know about this matter...The professor's were never asked to critique DCM's findings and in fact were NOT presented with them, so just how would you expect Professor Arnold to say anything, positive or otherwise? And furthermore, two of the professors were initially supplied with only one photo, and a different one at that! What kind of Hall BS was that??? ULTIMATELY, they all agreed that the Hall misused their initial comments and disgracefully, the Hall ignored them and did no further due diligence...they had their minds made up before the professor's were even contacted!!! I know, as I was there for the initial decision to consult them. Get over it.
Guest. Sorry, I'm not going to head this thread off in that direction.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| CS, it seems to me that you were convinced of that long before you made your first post on this thread. You may have made a good attempt at twisting around the comments of others to help validate you firm stance on your side of the fence, but let's not pretend you were ever actually ON the fence about any of this. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | CS,
This isn't your personal blog, it's a copyrighted publication. I asked you to stay within our posting permissions more than once.
I'm sure no one is surprised by your 'side of the fence' selection; I'm certainly not. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | EA you could have left just a little nail for us to hit! CS, so you believe the hall's validation of spray's record was on the level? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| Steve ,that has got to be the best written post on the subject i have ever read , you missed your calling ,i can see Hollywood calling you up for the movie rights , the big question is who will play Detloff, and in the end will the mythical beast be captured LMFAO Bill |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Larry Ramsell - 2/8/2011 10:51 AM
Kingfisher wrote: "I dont look at records and mounts and try to disqualify them. I enjoy the lore, the mythical creature stories, and the chase as it is. Lets all just go fish. Mike"
Mike, I never did either, in fact in my first "Compendium" I tried to find anything I could to substiantiate the record class fish; ALL of them. But then along came a young, self-proclaimed "ex-pert" (former drip under pressure), named Dettloff, that was smooth talking, but he had a hidden agenda and upset the record applecart. Well, that is except for the fish of his Hayward hero's. He didn't play fair and now he has dug himself and the NFWFHF (and the IGFA with the Johnson fish)) into a deep hole with regard to muskie records, and that my friend is one heck of a sad state of affairs. A disservice to muskie anglers that FAR exceeds anything Spray and others may have done!
Larry, I love your book. It gives me dreams of screaming drags and busted tackle. Mythical monsters over 100 pounds and legends that keep me looking for the Freak. I am confident that someone is going to end all the debate. Im sending my best lures to every corner of the Muskies range in an attempt to be the guy who lays claim to that record(as a lure builder) . She is there right now fat like an oil tanker. Ill bet she ate a 6 pound Whitefish today   I cant for the life of me see my way through the old records. So many claims, so many huge fish, so many legends and so much lore. Its the greatest mystery in the world of fishing. I love it!!!! ha ha ha ha . Take care my friend. Mike |
|
| |
|
| >What I said I'm able to prove and the NFWFHoF is going to welcome what I will be providing them with.< CS…I’m pretty certain that if this was a criminal case and you were my lawyer, my butt would be going to jail. You boast about “what you can prove’. But I seriously doubt that your ‘opinions’ carry the weight you would have us believe, as you have offered neither qualifying credentials nor substantiating evidence for making tjhose claims. Larry has consistently shared with the reader both WHAT he believes and WHY, based on well-explained circumstances and situations from reality. Yet you have continued to challenge him to debate on a juvenile level of discussion. Sigh. Steve may feel the need to delete this post because it is a bit negative towards another poster. But I find your ‘gamey’ style of posting on this subject, even after several requests from the ‘Editor”, to be annoying. Larry has stated clearly more than once that his interest lies NOT in endless debate of whether the historical records are legitimate or not but in establishing a new system of verifying and recording modern records, and letting the past ‘historical records’ alone as they are. What part of that are you not getting???? Frankly, whether you're on board or not---things are moving forward, not staying frozen in time! |
|
| |
|
| LR..."My point of noting both Eagle Lake fish were F & S certified was merely to show that both underwent scrutiny and passed (so did Spray and Johnson) and, again, not even Dettloff has had any problems with them..."
Dettloff will definitely have problems with them after I'm through. And these aren't the only ones he will develop a problem with. There are many more left for him to debunk.
What I'm going to provide Dettloff with will enable him to completely debunk ALL the work done by DCM. The media is going to have a field day with this just like when the NFWFHoF upheld the Spray record.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | And just why CS, if you are able to do so much and are so quailified, why not just do it yourself instead of continuing to use threats about what you think you know but have done nothing to prove? First step however would be to identify yourself instead of continuing to hide behind an anon board name and then put your cards on the table. We don't need Dettloff or the NFWFHF to further muddy the water. If you are so sure or yourself, then let's hear it instead of, as was noted above, continuing to "debate on a juvenile level of discussion." Whatever you have, real or imagined, isn't going to get any stronger coming from someone beside you. Stand up and take credit for your "work"...or continue your bluff or not, at Steve's choice. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | The hall has already validated the records. Only an impossible confesssion could change that. What could you possibly provide them that will change anything. All I gather from you is that the records are bogus and the status quo is the acceptable conclusion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 574
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | Is there a timeframe for this great revelation and will all others fall except the untouchable Hayward fish? |
|
| |
|
| LR..."And just why CS if you are able to do so much and are so qualified, why not just do it yourself instead of continuing to use threats about what you think you know but have done nothing to prove?"
I'm leaving it up to the NFWFHoF because THEY are the ones in control. I don't have to prove anything to you, only to them. And I can guarantee you they will like what they see.
ToddM,
What I will be providing them is information that will lead to the debunking of ALL the remaining 60 lbers as well as information that will support the validity of the Spray and Johnson fish. There are many things they overlooked in the work performed by DCM that I'm sure they will want to make public.
KenK,
The time frame will be whenever the NFWFHoF decides to release the information.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 337
Location: Central WI | CS - 2/9/2011 3:29 PM
What I will be providing them is information that will lead to the debunking of ALL the remaining 60 lbers as well as information that will support the validity of the Spray and Johnson fish. There are many things they overlooked in the work performed by DCM that I'm sure they will want to make public.
This guy is full of crap.....I think he's just having fun messing with people. |
|
| |
|
| bobtodd,
I'm sure the others know better. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| So let me get this straight...
1. You've found "evidence" that will debunk ALL the 60# fish.
2. Not one fish in 5 years of the best muskie angling the world has ever seen meets the WRMA's 60# criteria for the modern day records program
3. You say the Johnson fish and the Spray fish were legitimate, and you can prove it?
Well go ahead then!!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The last time you insisted you had inside information nothing happened. Not hard for me to do a search as to every post you have ever made here by your two Minnesota based IPs.
I'm thinking that is what will happen in the future. Convince me otherwise with data and facts, not buzzing noise. You come off as a conspiracy theorist offering all sorts of wild generalizations and absolutely zero facts or data to support them.
Start a new thread and offer facts and data; show us what you claim to know. I'll keep that thread between you and I only, no one else will post on it.
If not, do us all a favor and can it until this revelation hits the 'media'.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | I can't help but wonder, if the Hayward area is the only place that can grow 60 lb Muskies, why is it that the biggest Muskies caught every year all come from somewhere else? How long has it been since a 50 lb class Muskie has been caught in the Hayward area - much less a 60 lber? Now compare that to other waters like Green Bay, Georgian Bay, St. Lawrance, Mille Lacs, Vermilion, Eagle Lake, and LOTW where 50 lb class Muskies are caught every year.
The Hayward area is a fun place to visit and has some good fishing, but is not a WR class Muskie destination. The entire WR debate is really about tourism and keeping up the bogus claim to a WR to help bring tourism dollars into the Hayward area. That is what John D is all about - making sure people come to his resort. Without the WR being attached to the Flowage, he loses one of his big selling points.
It would not surprise me at all if CS was, in fact, John D. If it looks like a horse and smells like a horse and sounds like a horse, then it just might be a horse.
|
|
| |
|
| esoxaddict,
I'm glad you've got it straight. And I want to remind everyone that all of my posts that have been deleted will be in Dettloff's 'grab bag'. |
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | J.R. ? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Oh NOOOO, he'll have a bunch of weird, off the wall, zero real content drivel attacking Larry!!!
Revelations galore.
What the heck will that do for his debate? Nothing.
Listen, this guy was charging for seminars offering HUGE revelations and conclusions from the Chippewa Flowage Musky Study before the study--which wasn't what they claimed in the first place-was anywhere near finished; in fact there was no conclusions to talk about except what was fabricated. Sounds familiar. I'd welcome the opportunity to have at it with this crew again. |
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | Uh oh... The cat's out of the bag now
...Whoh, look how quite this discussion got.
Edited by Sam Ubl 2/9/2011 4:25 PM
|
|
| |
|
| As I said, I don't have to prove anything to you, or anyone else on this thread. You have a track record of deleting anything you don't want others to see anyway so why even bring this up? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Time to put this to bed. |
|
| |
